climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[SimonP]

Not really. The deterministic equations that govern the climate were known by 1896. More intellectually challenging science discovered in that era, e.g. relativity and quantum physics are no longer controversial, why should climate science be any different?
The only scientists remaining who questions the basics are older emeritus professors speaking outside their expertise or shills who are paid lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry. The rest of the world has moved on and is doing something about it, just like the CFC ozone hole problem back in the 1980's.

[Matteo V]

Not really. The deterministic equations that govern the climate were known by 1896. More intellectually challenging science discovered in that era, e.g. relativity and quantum physics are no longer controversial, why should climate science be any different?
The only scientists remaining who questions the basics are older emeritus professors speaking outside their expertise or shills who are paid lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry. The rest of the world has moved on and is doing something about it, just like the CFC ozone hole problem back in the 1980's.

Total bs.

The sheer scale of the complexity of the climate is impossible to model even with the greatest conceivable supercomputers. You can do quantum physics on your iphone.

[Havre]

This logical fallacy is called "God of the Gaps". The more we know, the more so-called sceptics will retreat into the uncertainties as 'evidence' for their opinions.
I agree though that climate is a non-linear system with feedback loops. That is why we use paleo-climatic evidence to see what is possible in the future.
What we do know is that surface temperatures will continue to increase unless net greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to zero.
Extreme global warming can and has happened in the past, take a look at the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum sometime.

No. I am not believing in something based on the lack of the evidence in the opposite. Not to mention that "science" uses the "god of the gaps" all the time. We call them "unknown variables", black holes etc. Actually it is a completely fair scientific principle to assume that something works in a certain way as that seem to explain everything else. Every single climate model is built this way.

If a physicist comes up with a new explanation of the "world" based on black holes behaving differently than what we currently think - would you then disregard that theory?

This confusion that if you are not believing in something you are automatically denying it seems to become more and more common.

As for your last sentence - sensational arrogance as for some reason pop up among almost all the "believers" in this thread - isn't that just proof of concept of the opposite of what you are arguing?

[tautologies]

Really think about your statements here. Do they sound a bit draconian? Can you think of times where this type of statement has been used, then "enforced" by it's own self definition?

This is the kind of brainwashed junk that gets millions of good people face down in mass graves. And to claim this is science??? That's the joke of the show! Science doesn't teach us to NOT QUESTION like you would have us do. Science is about encouraging challenge in an effort to strengthen accepted understanding, or prove it wrong to gain a better understanding.

And thus we are brought the undeniable conclusion that AGW belief is truly more like religion, than it is not. I would welcome any refutation of this statement.

If you understood science you would understand how wrong you are, but you don't.
Yes science ask to question, and to challenge, and to prove it wrong, but you do not do that by trying to push pseudo science and long ago falsified bullshit.....every piece of evidence is not equal. Once you come to a relatively stable understanding of reality it is trivial knowledge, and unless you can use actual science to refute and redefine you are stuck in that reality. It is not being brainwashed, it is understanding the scientific process.
TBH discussing with you isn't very productive.

[slide]

no bud its not, i gave up --just trying to derail everything that is said , with bullshit-trump supporters

[SimonP]

Not really. The deterministic equations that govern the climate were known by 1896. More intellectually challenging science discovered in that era, e.g. relativity and quantum physics are no longer controversial, why should climate science be any different?

Total bs.
The sheer scale of the complexity of the climate is impossible to model even with the greatest conceivable supercomputers. You can do quantum physics on your iphone.

False. The first Global Climate Model was developed by James Hansen in 1983 and ran on a computer far less powerful than your iPhone. Its forecasts under a range of emissions scenarios have proved to be extremely robust.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

[Matteo V]

If a physicist comes up with a new explanation of the "world" based on black holes behaving differently than what we currently think - would you then disregard that theory?

Only if it does not fit the approved narrative. If it does fit the approved narrative, then the old theory must be censored as it will be in opposition. - sarcasm


This is the change we have witnessed in the last 20years in the west. The scientific method used to take precedent over narratives, logic and reason took precedent over feelings, and reality took precedent over fantasy. But we no longer live in that world.

[Matteo V]

Not really. The deterministic equations that govern the climate were known by 1896. More intellectually challenging science discovered in that era, e.g. relativity and quantum physics are no longer controversial, why should climate science be any different?

Total bs.
The sheer scale of the complexity of the climate is impossible to model even with the greatest conceivable supercomputers. You can do quantum physics on your iphone.

False. The first Global Climate Model was developed by James Hansen in 1983 and ran on a computer far less powerful than your iPhone. Its forecasts under a range of emissions scenarios have proved to be extremely robust.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

False. Then why did the prediction of Florida being underwater not come true? Why do we still have snow?

Even the current climate models are run with full knowledge that there are at least more unknowns than knowns. And then there is the absolute fact that changing the known variables to anywhere within the range of uncertainty can produce warming or cooling predictions. A model that tells you two opposite answers is useless for predictions.

If you actually think the climate is simple enough to be understood with our current knowledge, then you have no understanding of the climate's complexity.

[slide]

trying to bring the coal industry back -i mean

[SimonP]

False. Then why did the prediction of Florida being underwater not come true? Why do we still have snow?

Even the current climate models are run with full knowledge that there are at least more unknowns than knowns. And then there is the absolute fact that changing the known variables to anywhere within the range of uncertainty can produce warming or cooling predictions. A model that tells you two opposite answers is useless for predictions.

If you actually think the climate is simple enough to be understood with our current knowledge, then you have no understanding of the climate's complexity.

No GCM predicted an underwater Florida or an absence of snow in 2021.
We can not accurately forecast weather more than 10 days out even with a very hi-res GCM because weather is chaotic. The analogy is a butterfly in Spain causing a hurricane in Florida. Climate is the average of weather and is inherently much more predictable.